The resolution of the working group was that we needed to continue to
say that XHTML-M12N based markup languages, including XHTML 1.1, SHOULD
be served as application/xhtml+xml - we do not prohibit their being
served other ways. There was a discussion at the f2f in Cannes about
changing this to text/html, and a draft was produced that said that.
However, there were many strong objections to it and the working group
instructed me to change it back. I am sure I could find the references,
but its like 5 AM here and I am not at the top of my game.
Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Shane,
>
> My memory of this discussion is that we came down the other. :) I.e.,
> we decided _against_ the enforcement of a media type of
> 'application/xhtml+xml', and supported allowing people to use
> 'text/html'.
>
> In my view there is little to gain from insisting on an XML media type
> for XHTML. MIME types have been increasingly hijacked over the years
> to designate a preferred processing application, rather than a
> document type. This isn't likely to change any time soon, so we might
> as well live with it. In which case it would be far better to leave
> the 'processing application' designation as 'an HTML or XHTML
> renderer' (i.e., as 'text/html'), and leave it up to authors and
> publishing systems to indicate the _document type_ through other
> mechanisms (such as DOCTYPE, @xmlns, @profile, or whatever techniques
> can be devised).
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
> On 02/10/2007, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote:
>
>> Note that there are updated drafts of ALL XHTML Working Group specs
>> available via http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts.
>>
>> Yes, that text has been changed. See, for example,
>> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-xhtml11-20070416/conformance.html#strict
>>
>>
>>
>> olivier Thereaux wrote:
>>
>>> (apologies, had originally mailed the wrong list)
>>>
>>> Hello, XHTML WG,
>>>
>>> Could you tell the status of this paragraph in the XHTML 1.1 spec? The
>>> latest working draft (Feb 2007... getting old) states that XHTML 1.1
>>> SHOULD be served as text/html (or app/xhtml+xml) and this is confusing
>>> people.
>>>
>>> I think I recall a message from Shane saying this was a typo, but could
>>> not find it in either www-html-editor (could only find a few reports
>>> of the issue, but no answer from the WG), nor in www-html, nor in
>>> www-validator where I thought this had been raised. Other echoes I got
>>> seem to show this was actually on purpose.
>>>
>>> Is there any public record of what will happen to this statement in the
>>> next draft?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> -- olivier
>>>
>>> ----- Forwarded message from Rado Faletic <rado.faletic@anu.edu.au> -----
>>>
>>> From: Rado Faletic <rado.faletic@anu.edu.au>
>>> To: www-validator@w3.org
>>> X-Archived-At:
>>> http://www.w3.org/mid/AB7951B9-369C-4F87-862A-95C110BE1691@anu.edu.au
>>>
>>>
>>> note that in the XHTML1.1 working draft (16 Feb 2007) it says the
>>> following:
>>> XHTML 1.1 documents SHOULD be labeled with the Internet Media Type
>>> text/html as defined in [RFC2854] or application/xhtml+xml as defined
>>> in [RFC3236].
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> ----- End Forwarded Message -----
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
>> Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180
>> ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com